Quoting Calvin

Hammster said:

I'm sorry, but I have to stop now. If you don't think disobeying God is a sin, and need scripture, then we are so far apart that I don't see how we can continue. We'll just keep talking past each other.

Click to expand...

that is not what i said at all

please read more carefully what i said - specifically the parts you cut out of my quote

if you can't deal with the parts of my post you cut out then i understand and accept your leaving the conversation

but editing what i said so you can accuse me of something i didn't say is not acceptable

God Bless you my dear friend

Truthfrees said:

that is not what i said at all

please read more carefully what i said - specifically the parts you cut out of my quote

if you can't deal with the parts of my post you cut out then i understand and accept your leaving the conversation

but editing what i said so you can accuse me of something i didn't say is not acceptable

God Bless you

Click to expand...

If you need scripture to show that not obeying the gospel is sin, then I'm just not sure where to go from there.

Hammster said:

If you need scripture to show that not obeying the gospel is sin, then I'm just not sure where to go from there.

Click to expand...

that is not what i said

you tried to paste 2 elements together

that is what i need a scripture for

where does scripture paste those 2 elements together

Jesus paid for all sins - scripture says that

where does it say Jesus didn't pay for the sins that puts people in hell

Truthfrees said:

that is not what i said

you tried to paste 2 elements together

that is what i need a scripture for

where does scripture paste those 2 elements together

Jesus paid for all sins - scripture says that

where does it say Jesus didn't pay for the sins that puts people in hell

Click to expand...

I have no idea what two elements you are talking about that I pasted together. You said that people are in hell for not obeying the gospel. I said it was sin, and asked if it was a sin Christ died for.

What was there to disagree with?

Hammster said:

Not obeying the gospel is a sin. Is it one Christ died for?

Click to expand...

Truthfrees said:

do you have a scripture for that

i need to see a scripture to decide if i agree or disagree with you

until then this is all i can say:
their sins are paid for by Jesus but they reject that payment to their account - so His righteousness does not get credited to them by their own free will choice

Click to expand...

Hammster said:

I have no idea what two elements you are talking about that I pasted together. You said that people are in hell for not obeying the gospel. I said it was sin, and asked if it was a sin Christ died for.

What was there to disagree with?

Click to expand...

rejecting the gospel lands people in hell - scripture says so - they are not paying for their sins - they are paying the penalty of not knowing God and rejecting the gospel

Jesus paid for all sin - even the sin that sent people to hell - which imo includes rejecting the gospel

how can they be in hell then if all their sins are paid for - even the sin of rejecting the gospel?

they rejected God's free gift of forgiveness of sins and regeneration - so Jesus' payment can not be credited to their account - He does not force His gifts on anyone - He allows us to choose life or death - those who are in hell chose death

i gave scriptures in this thread that i believe prove that everyone who ends up in hell knew full well ahead of time this was the result of hating God and rejecting the gospel

yet they chose hell anyway - so no one has an excuse - it's on their own head that they end up in hell

DYNAMICS
from genesis to present day how does God clearly give the gospel or warn people of the outcome of rejecting Him and His provision for regeneration?
1. He speaks to them directly like Moses, Adam, etc
2. He sends human and angel messengers to speak to them
3. He speaks to people through dreams and visions
4. He speaks through scripture

somehow from Genesis to present day - before a person dies - God makes sure people have heard the gospel and have been warned about hating God and rejecting the gospel

as you said - those in the OT looked forward to God's gospel - and we look back - so regeneration was always possible by grace through faith

Hammster said:

If you need scripture to show that not obeying the gospel is sin, then I'm just not sure where to go from there.

Click to expand...

That isn't what he said, and you know it. He asked you for a verse to clarify what you were meaning by your question.

Hammster said:

I have no idea what two elements you are talking about that I pasted together. You said that people are in hell for not obeying the gospel. I said it was sin, and asked if it was a sin Christ died for.

What was there to disagree with?

Click to expand...

Jesus died as the propitiation (atoning sacrifice) for all sin. His death then 'pays for all sin' in that regard. However, the blood of the sacrifice has to be received in faith for anyone to apply that payment to their account (Rom 3:25), as only those in the kingdom of God under the High Priest are covered by the application of the blood to the mercy seat (Heb 2:17.)

Since this has been repeated over and over, I will try an analogy:

Imagine $1,000,000 in the bank, earmarked for the repayment of a loan someone else besides the owner took out. That money is the payment for the debt. But unless the recipient receives the check and cashes it, the money never transfers to the debtor's account.

Likewise, Jesus' death as atoning sacrifice is the object which pays the debt for all sin. (I Jn 2:2) Yet the check (blood) isn't applied to our account unless we receive it by faith. (And the blood has already been applied to the mercy seat, so we don't even have to go do something like cash a check - just consent in faith!)

That is why unbelief, not sins in general, is the determining factor for who goes to hell or not. A sinner can always have his account covered by turning to belief, just like someone who refuses the check to cover his debt but later decides to take it. They remain under condemnation because they refuse to believe (Jn 3:16, Rom 2:8, Jn 5:38, I Pet 4:17-18, etc.)

Someone who persists in unbelief and dies in it can never have his debt of sin covered. The check has been voided, no longer on offer. The money is still there - but the unbeliever can't take advantage of it.

Truthfrees said:

rejecting the gospel lands people in hell - scripture says so - they are not paying for their sins - they are paying the penalty of not knowing God and rejecting the gospel

Jesus paid for all sin - even the sin that sent people to hell - which imo includes rejecting the gospel

how can they be in hell then if all their sins are paid for - even the sin of rejecting the gospel?

they rejected God's free gift of forgiveness of sins and regeneration - so Jesus' payment can not be credited to their account - He does not force His gifts on anyone - He allows us to choose life or death - those who are in hell chose death

i gave scriptures in this thread that i believe prove that everyone who ends up in hell knew full well ahead of time this was the result of hating God and rejecting the gospel

yet they chose hell anyway - so no one has an excuse - it's on their own head that they end up in hell

DYNAMICS
from genesis to present day how does God clearly give the gospel or warn people of the outcome of rejecting Him and His provision for regeneration?
1. He speaks to them directly like Moses, Adam, etc
2. He sends human and angel messengers to speak to them
3. He speaks to people through dreams and visions
4. He speaks through scripture

somehow from Genesis to present day - before a person dies - God makes sure people have heard the gospel and have been warned about hating God and rejecting the gospel

as you said - those in the OT looked forward to God's gospel - and we look back - so regeneration was always possible by grace through faith

Click to expand...

So I'm left to conclude that Jesus took the penalty for sin, but people can still be penalized for that sin because their sin of rejection can overpower Christ's blood. So Christ's blood is only good if combined with man's free will.

No wonder people reject synergism.

Jennifer Rothnie said:

That isn't what he said, and you know it. He asked you for a verse to clarify what you were meaning by your question.

Click to expand...

The question was clear in relation to our discussion. So I took the question at face value. If you have an issue with me, you are free to not respond.

Hammster said:

So I'm left to conclude that Jesus took the penalty for sin, but people can still be penalized for that sin because their sin of rejection can overpower Christ's blood. So Christ's blood is only good if combined with man's free will.

No wonder people reject synergism.

Click to expand...

Rephrasing what people say and extrapolating from that, rather than responding to what they post, doesn't strengthen your argument. You present yet another strawman argument.

Scripture never considers faith to be a dead work - so it isn't treated as a 'problem' in scripture for man to be able to respond to the gospel in faith. It's not a dead work, but rather the work God requires (Jn 6:28-29.)

As for the buzzwords of 'monergism' vs. 'synergism:'

Neither view is correct, as defined by man. They are not strict premises of themselves [such as God alone saves vs. Man saves himself], but are rather theological buzzwords. 'Monergism' is a theory describing factors surrounding salvation, 'Synergism' is a strawman theory created to show what anyone not believing the monergist theory 'must' believe in.

As such, the terms themselves must be analyzed and the false dichotomy of the two theories presented before the real topic; salvation; can be studied.

Monergism, in theology, is the theory that *because* God alone saves, then God 'must' subsequently bring salvation about by the spiritual regeneration of certain individuals, without their consent or control, so that they may have faith.

Note that this is not a premise of itself, but rather a conclusion a couple steps away:

Premise: God alone saves (All Christians would agree with this)
Premise: If man can choose to be convinced/have faith then he would be participating in his own salvation (Not all Christians agree with this)
Conclusion: Man cannot have faith of his own volition.
Premise: The Spirit could regenerate man so he could have faith.
Conclusion: God must regenerate certain men through the spirit so they will have faith.

The above is vastly simplified, but you can see that Monergism is not as simple as the idea "God alone saves". Instead it is a theory developed from that starting point.

Synergism is a buzzword usually used to describe how Calvinists perceive any non-Calvinist presentation of salvation; namely that any view contrary to monergism must hold that man contributes to saving himself.

As such, it is not a theory people hold of themselves (usually), but rather a "prop" theory to argue against.

In the monergist view, claiming sinful man could have faith is equivalent to claiming that man saves himself, at least in part, and hence the idea that man can obey/have faith without prior spiritual regeneration is branded 'synergism'.

This is what is known in logic as a "false dichotomy". Two ideas are presented, and one is asked to decide 'either/or'. One is pressured to choose a "side", vs. Examining the actual premise or the definitions involved. Often, these 'sides' are presented by a person who only believes one, and so the view he/she opposes is often a false presentation, a characterization, or presented through a distorted lens.

This leads to factions and divisions, as those just beginning to study an issue are told that one idea or another is more Biblical, more spiritual, more humble, etc. This may lead to the further consequence of scripture being redefined or ignored in order to hang onto the chosen theory, and errors become more and more entrenched over time, as the person who has taken a side feels he "must" hold to it, lest he fall into the "even worse" errors of the other side.

Some resolve this simply by choosing not to resolve the problem, saying "It's a mystery", or "It's unknowable", and then doing their best not to think about it. Others resolve this, partially, by becoming experts in where the "other side" is wrong. The best resolution is to avoid, as far as possible, the trap that any Biblical concept can be completely summed up by a theory of man or popular buzzword; or that any one person or theory will have all the answers.

God alone accomplishes salvation, as man cannot save himself.
But what is salvation? Salvation is deliverance. It has connotations both of what one is delivered from (sin, affliction, poverty, captivity, etc.) and of what one is delivered into (righteousness, welfare, prosperity, freedom, etc.)

Yet, there is nothing inherent in the concept of salvation that would mean a captive accepting salvation 'works with' the savior.

Hammster said:

So I'm left to conclude that Jesus took the penalty for sin, but people can still be penalized for that sin because their sin of rejection can overpower Christ's blood. So Christ's blood is only good if combined with man's free will.

No wonder people reject synergism.

Click to expand...

it's not synergism

God alone produces the results

man accepts or rejects the results

Hammster said:

The question was clear in relation to our discussion. So I took the question at face value. If you have an issue with me, you are free to not respond.

Click to expand...

you seem to keep misquoting us and then attributing to us an inaccurate claim

can we have a discussion without the accusations?

Jennifer Rothnie said:

Someone who persists in unbelief and dies in it can never have his debt of sin covered. The check has been voided, no longer on offer. The money is still there - but the unbeliever can't take advantage of it.

Click to expand...

amen

and i wonder if it goes deeper than that

imo they don't want to take advantage of it

they hate God so much they don't want to submit to Him in any way - even if God has clearly informed them of the choices

God is gracious and merciful - patient and kind - but Jesus said some people hate God and love sin and refuse to come into the light

Truthfrees said:

it's not synergism

God alone produces the results

man accepts or rejects the results

Click to expand...

If God can't change your heart without your permission, its synergism.

Truthfrees said:

you seem to keep misquoting us and then attributing to us an inaccurate claim

can we have a discussion without the accusations?

Click to expand...

I've not misquoted you once. So, can we have a discussion without the accusations?

Jennifer Rothnie said:

Rephrasing what people say and extrapolating from that, rather than responding to what they post, doesn't strengthen your argument. You present yet another strawman argument.

Click to expand...

Rephrasing is acceptable as long as it's accurate. It's accurate.

Hammster said:

If God can't change your heart without your permission, its synergism.

Click to expand...

No that's true unbound unlimited free will

the same kind lucifer had - to choose to obey or rebel against God

Truthfrees said:

No that's true unbound unlimited free will

the same kind lucifer had - to choose to obey or rebel against God

Click to expand...

It doesn't change what synergism is.

Hammster said:

It doesn't change what synergism is.

Click to expand...

agreed but what i am describing is not synergism

Hammster said:

Rephrasing is acceptable as long as it's accurate. It's accurate.

Click to expand...

that is the issue we are bringing up to you

you do not accurately rephrase what we are saying

you assume you know what we are saying and without our permission rephrase

we then correct you on what we really said

you keep doing this - putting words in our mouth

this is unacceptable - you are misquoting/putting words in our mouths/rephrasing

please don't do that anymore - please ask us to rephrase - or ask us if xyz is what we are saying - don't tell us we are saying xyz